Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Did you people see the same film I saw?

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I couldn't remember if I'd seen "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" before. After watching it, I'm still not sure. It's that kind of movie, but then none of the recent "Chainsaw" retreads have had anything to distinguish one from the other.This one, I guess, is supposed to be a prequel to the classic original, which was made (and set) in 1974. "The Beginning" is set in the '60s, with two characters who are staring down the barrel of an imminent tour of duty in Vietnam.All setting the movie closer to the time of the original "Texas Chainsaw" does it make it look more like garbage by comparison. That movie was made on a shoe-string budget, and yet it was a work of genius with style to spare. It wasn't even that violent, and yet the film's atmosphere was so oppressive that people let their imaginations do the work, and Tobe Hooper spoke of fans coming up to him and describing brutally violent scenes that they swore were in the movie, but in fact, were not.Alas, this prequel, if that's what it is, does nothing to ignite the imagination. It's a tedious, humdrum, dreary affair, which doesn't even really get the violence right. It would have cost millions. Why not go crazy with the gore? Face it: that's the only reason anyone watches this stuff. Why not let them have it? Sure, it has some pretty violent bits toward the end of the movie, but you have to wait so long to see it, and you'll probably be asleep by then.Lee Tergesen, of "Oz" and "Generation Kill" and "Weird Science", has a strange walk on role that is not utilised at all. Knowing what a great actor he is, why did they cast him and give him nothing to do?R. Lee Ermey is really the main antagonist of the film, but I think by 2006 he was really long past his intimidating heyday. He looks like a sad and angry old man, not the demon the movie requires.Leatherface, never really allowed to be the 'star' of these films like Freddy or Jason were the stars of theirs, is predictably pushed into the background, showing up every once in a while when someone needs to die.

And so the cycle goes on. This time, the latest film in the Texas Chainsaw series (the sixth to date) is a prequel to the remake, claiming to reveal the origins behind Leatherface and show the viewer how this sadistic, inhuman killer and his mad family came to exist. That's the claim, anyway. In reality, the first twenty minutes are the 'prequel' bit, and then the film becomes just another formula movie with the same elements – a vehicle full of youths runs foul of the inhabitants of the remote farmhouse and are butchered one by one.Those expecting enlightenment will come away sorely disappointed – but maybe that's the point. Leatherface has no origin: he's just a brutal, faceless killer, a hulking he-man with a taste for flesh. His 'family' are all crazy and have always been that way. However, THE BEGINNING does manage to capture some of the raw grittiness of the original film, something that the last few sequels and the remake were missing; perhaps it's the period setting or the bleached cinematography, but this is a film that has the right 'look' to it. It's just a shame that look is wasted in such a mundane and routine film.You know, I'm getting mighty tired of these backwoods/rural/mutant/woodland killer films of late, because they're all the same: no story, just endless chases, captures and escapes. I'm thinking of the likes of WRONG TURN, MANHUNT; none of them are offering anything new, just more of the same. Jump scares and outrageous gore are no match for a good script and atmosphere, and THE BEGINNING is missing the latter two, although the gore is here in spades. In a film market saturated by the likes of HOSTEL and SAW, this is a film that goes all out to become the grisliest Texas Chainsaw movie yet. Skin is flayed off, people's faces are removed and the living are chainsawed into pieces, all shown in gritty, close-up detail. The blood flows freely and there's an emphasis on sadism and repellent torture and barbarity that makes this hard to watch; at the same time, you quickly become desensitised to it all, unlike in a film such as HOSTEL where my heart was pounding throughout.The cast members are pretty predictable – the usual bunch of bland twentysomethings who you don't really care about or engage with as they get variously slaughtered in gruesome ways. Jordana Brewster, the skinny heroine, is particularly bland and unremarkable, and I think the buxom blonde Diora Baird would have made for a far better 'scream queen'. Bryniarski looks the part as Leatherface but lacks the hulking, quiet menace that Gunnar Hansen brought to the role, although R. Lee Ermey has a ball as an absolutely despicable bad guy. And so there you have it – more gore than before but no new ideas in another ultimately bland and pointless teen terror flick.

This movie was, kind of okay. First of all, it was a little scary, that's why I give it 6/10. The rest was crap. First of all, it had some good cool things, kind of cool seeing the beginning. I thought the rest was a, just a scare fest. Nothing interesting, it's just gory and makes it hard for you to sleep. It was NOT as good as the other movies. The original is WAY better than this. It has no moments in the movie that make you say, "Wow! That was well done!" It is just not as creative as the other movies. I don't recommend it. If you love The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, you might like it. I love The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It is not as good though. It is a poorly thought film. I want everyone here who haven't seen the original, watch the original. You'll love it, but never see this movie first. Thank you.

This was one of the movies I re-watched during my annual horror-movie watching fest during Halloween.TCM the Beginning has been unfairly criticized and panned from people who say things like "there isn't anything new," or "who cares how Leatherface came to be?" Yet the filmmakers themselves said they made the movie partly in response to reams of mail they received asking about how Pa Hewitt came to be sheriff and how his brother-in-law lost his legs (both answered in this movie).From a writer's point of view, there are nice little subtleties about the script to keep the viewer engaged and caring about the characters. Without giving too much away, the poor good looking young people who get tortured this time are a couple of brothers on their way to re-enlist to return to Vietnam (this movie is set four years before either of the originals) and their pretty girlfriends.Other people get involved but the producers wisely stayed away from some of the silly, crowded-cast shenanigans of either "Next Generation" or TCM2.It does kind of end with a thud, as some people have complained, but part of that is because Sheriff Hewitt and Leatherface have to be around, totally intact, for the story that will come four years later.